British Airways strikes - here we go again

[Herr Tubthumper]

What a load of old bollocks. How is removing perks going to achieve anything other than put the backs up of the union? And more specifically, how will it ensure that the company isn't destroyed by unions? It is bullying, pure and simple.

This

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As an aside, part of me does wonder why the public get so annoyed at BA staff striking. They have a recent history of striking, so a fresh strike cannot really be a surprise. You would not buy a dog and complain it barks would you?

And there are plenty of alternatives, and much better alternatives at that. So just let the staff get on with it, to a degree it's not our business.

That said, hopefully Walsh will be given the boot and we can all live happily every after.

 

[Grendel]

How is removing perks going to achieve anything other than put the backs up of the union? And more specifically, how will it ensure that the company isn't destroyed by unions?

But how is going on strike every six months going to achieve anything other than drive passengers away from a company that's lost money hand over fist for the last couple of years? When I've flown over the last couple of years I haven't even considered BA, as I'd like there to be more than a moderate possibility that my flight will take place. I can't believe that I'm the only person in the country that feels the same way.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But how is going on strike every six months going to achieve anything other than drive passengers away from a company that's lost money hand over fist for the last couple of years? When I've flown over the last couple of years I haven't even considered BA, as I'd like there to be more than a moderate possibility that my flight will take place. I can't believe that I'm the only person in the country that feels the same way.

One can only wonder as to how low staff morale is that, in a recession, they risk their jobs by striking so often.

 

[User removed 4]

It doesn't say as much, but didn't Walsh threaten to pull the plug on dirt cheap travel for striking cabin crew, and then carried that out? I'm actually suprised that what BA have done is legal to be honest because whilst those benefits weren't contractual obligations, they were very much implied, and Walsh has basically bullied these people into never striking again and whilst this is inconvenient to the rest of us, really ought to be properly protected.

I guess what I'm saying is that this strike is actually far more justified than the last one IMO.

spot on.

 

[disgruntled h blocker]

Am currently in Lilongwe, Malawi working until Easter. I'm very pleased I chose to fly South African Airways instead of BA now. Would not have been a happy bunny if my return flight on Wednesday 20th April got cancelled because of a strike, so I'd miss another home game!

 

[beorhthelm]

what i dont understand is why the union insist on always striking on public holidays, thereby inconveniencing the maximum number of the general public and the least sympathy for the strike.

 

[Tummy Burger]

Are the press reporting this all wrong then ?
Happy to be corrected if the facts and reasons for the strikes have been misreported. I can only go by what I've read.

In a word Easy. YES. Most all of what you see in the press comes from one place. Namely the BA press office.

I will not write anything on here.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

IMHO BA should not be allowed to advertise all these Sales and Special Deals to the Caribbean and the like, while there's a large chance their customers will not be able to travel or will be subject to huge disruption. It's dishonest advertising. Tho on the other hand it could be argued that anybody daft enough to book with these people while this crap rumbles on gets all they deserve.

 

[Icy Gull]

IMHO BA should not be allowed to advertise all these Sales and Special Deals to the Caribbean and the like, while there's a large chance their customers will not be able to travel or will be subject to huge disruption. It's dishonest advertising. Tho on the other hand it could be argued that anybody daft enough to book with these people while this crap rumbles on gets all they deserve.

The disruption will be minimal so I'd book the cheaper deal and not allow posts like this to put you off, I think 90% plus of long haul flights operated during the last strike.

Now short haul flights may be a problem

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In a word Easy. YES. Most all of what you see in the press comes from one place. Namely the BA press office.

I will not write anything on here.

Well even the Unite Press Office agrees with the reason the press are giving for this strike ballot and possible forthcoming strike .

http://www.unitetheunion.org/campai..._releases/new_ballot_of_cabin_crew_begin.aspx

I would suggest that your reluctance to state what you claim are the "facts" means you're talking bollocks. Otherwise are you seriously suggesting Unite is putting out false press statements ?

 

[The Spanish]

IMHO BA should not be allowed to advertise all these Sales and Special Deals to the Caribbean and the like, while there's a large chance their customers will not be able to travel or will be subject to huge disruption. It's dishonest advertising.

should this apply to all airlines who may have their services subject to disruption at some as yet undetermined point in the future, a moritorium on advertising or marketing until they can guarantee a disruption free service? how on earth would that work.

 

[Tummy Burger]

Well even the Unite Press Office agrees with the reason the press are giving for this strike ballot and possible forthcoming strike .

http://www.unitetheunion.org/campai..._releases/new_ballot_of_cabin_crew_begin.aspx

I would suggest that your reluctance to state what you claim are the "facts" means you're talking bollocks. Otherwise are you seriously suggesting Unite is putting out false press statements ?

Westdene. LOL. Yes that's right I am talking bollocks.

The key part of that link that you have posted.... but you will not understand is this

"The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union."

 

[Tummy Burger]

My reluctance to state the facts as you put it is simple. Possible disciplinary action / suspension / sacked.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

"The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union."

I fully understand what that means but I fail to see how the union thinks it has the right to say WHO staffs what flight. Those on different T&Cs have agreed to them and, in some cases, belong to another union or no union at all.

You still haven't stated what this "secret" agenda behind the strikes is. The mixed fleet was already in the public domain.

 

[The Spanish]

My reluctance to state the facts as you put it is simple. Possible disciplinary action / suspension / sacked.

you go on flyertalk and ba staff talk about it quite openly (up to a point) over the net, not being funny.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My reluctance to state the facts as you put it is simple. Possible disciplinary action / suspension / sacked.

Because BA are really going to be able to track you down with facts such as your name is Tummy Burger and allegedly you're in Haywards Heath ( for work or to live or using an internet cafe - who can tell ? ). Nope, don't believe you. If there was some big issue I have no doubt the Union would have publicised it ( unless of course it puts the union in a bad light ).

 

[Tummy Burger]

I fully understand what that means but I fail to see how the union thinks it has the right to say WHO staffs what flight. Those on different T&Cs have agreed to them and, in some cases, belong to another union or no union at all.

You still haven't stated what this "secret" agenda behind the strikes is. The mixed fleet was already in the public domain.

1. If the unions members salaries are made up significantly from allowances from flying.

2. The Union couldn't give a toss about the new staff on new t's and C's because they were not aloud to be in the union.

3. Mixed fleet is pretty much the be all and end all of this dispute. Or at least it was initially.

Your comments make it very clear that you DO NOT understand the dispute. But hey, I am not looking for an argument , and I am not looking to win anyone around. I sit plum in the middle of this argument and see it from both sides. And as I mentioned before, I do not blame anyone for not understanding it. As for other staff talking about it on other sites. Bully for them, and good luck to them. Pro airline = fine. Pro crew = trouble. And I am not really either.

 

[Tummy Burger]

Because BA are really going to be able to track you down with facts such as your name is Tummy Burger and allegedly you're in Haywards Heath ( for work or to live or using an internet cafe - who can tell ? ). Nope, don't believe you. If there was some big issue I have no doubt the Union would have publicised it ( unless of course it puts the union in a bad light ).

They have. I refer to previous post re Mixed Fleet.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

1. If the unions members salaries are made up significantly from allowances from flying.

2. The Union couldn't give a toss about the new staff on new t's and C's because they were not aloud to be in the union.

3. Mixed fleet is pretty much the be all and end all of this dispute. Or at least it was initially.

Your comments make it very clear that you DO NOT understand the dispute. But hey, I am not looking for an argument , and I am not looking to win anyone around. I sit plum in the middle of this argument and see it from both sides. And as I mentioned before, I do not blame anyone for not understanding it. As for other staff talking about it on other sites. Bully for them, and good luck to them. Pro airline = fine. Pro crew = trouble. And I am not really either.

Likewise I'm not looking for a fight but when someone comes on here and effectively says people don;t understand the dispute but I'm not telling you why, you can't seriously think you're not going to get challenged on it ?

I fully understand what the union claim the dispute is about but don't agree that they have a case. Your point number 2 is interesting, have they really closed the door on new BA workers joining Unite ? I knew Unite were a shower of shite but that takes the biscuit. Or are you saying BA won't allow new crew to join Unite as part of their contract ? If that's the case I thought that was illegal ( apart from in a very few protected areas such as the armed forces ).